New appeals court, appointed judges proposed

Apr. 5, 2007

Written by

Associated Press

Advocates of a new Nevada appeals court and appointed judges -- requiring constitutional changes previously rejected by voters -- argued Thursday that lawmakers must try again to get the questions on the ballot.

Chief Justice Bill Maupin told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Joint Resolution 9, creating the appeals court between district courts and the state Supreme Court, is needed because of the increasing litigation that stems from Nevada's rapid growth. Maupin said various steps to keep up with the high court's workload, such as fast-tracking many cases and improving a case settlement process, have helped, but now it's time to move the court system "up another level." While voters have rejected the appeals court plan previously, Maupin added that with a strong, professionally run campaign, "now we believe we can make that case."

The resolution must be approved this session and again in the 2009 session. Voters would have final say in the 2010 election. Appeals court judges would be elected in 2012.

The intermediate court plan has come up repeatedly in the Legislature over the past 30 years, and made it to the ballot twice -- in 1980 and again in 1992 -- only to be rejected by voters.

Jim Richardson, a University of Nevada, Reno professor and head of UNR's Sawyer Center for Justice Studies, urged the Judiciary Committee to approve SJR2, which would amend the Nevada Constitution to provide for appointed judges. Richardson said the plan would "relieve judges of the terrible burden of trying to raise money (for campaigning). The moment they do they are immediately criticized for it."

Under SJR2, a variation on a plan rejected by voters in 1988, a commission would nominate judges the governor would then appoint.

After one year, a judge would run unopposed for election and would have to get at least 60 percent of the vote to win a 6-year term.

Opponents of SJR2 included Juli Starr-Alexander, who founded a group called Redress Inc. that describes itself as an organization that seeks to combat judicial corruption and help those who have been harmed by judges.

Starr-Alexander called SJR2 "a Band-Aid fix to cover up a disease, a cancerous legal system." She said her group would do "everything within our power to see that it doesn't pass."

In a court-related development, Maupin has announced the Supreme Court is creating a commission to study procedures for preservation, public access and sealing of court records.

Maupin's announcement Wednesday preceded a scheduled Friday hearing by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on AB519, which limits a judge's ability to seal public records without first holding a hearing.

In February, the Las Vegas Review-Journal disclosed that since 2000 Clark County judges have decided that more than 100 lawsuits should be hidden from the public, and the litigants involved in those cases tended to be wealthy and influential in business, politics or the courts.

Along with the dispute described in each lawsuit, also kept secret are the outcomes of each lawsuit, the name of the judge who sealed each case, whether the plaintiff or defendant had asked that the lawsuit be sealed, and any explanation by a judge for abandoning the fundamental principle that courts shall be open to the public.

Maupin said the new commission "will examine a number of issues involving access to court records and the need to balance public access with critical private interests."